>>>"A 1U VCO is nice, but doesn't everyone already have at least one or two
VCOs? ... . If another VCO were to be designed, I'd vote for a 2U DUAL-VCO
like on the Oberheim SEM."
Sure, I have four MOTM-300s, which means only eight more VCOs to go! But
after a certain point, you don't need ∗all∗ of the features on the '300 --
you're usually stacking VCOs to add harmonic content -- so an economical
(yet stable) VCO is very desirable. Also, about a year ago, many of us
expressed the deep need for more "1u" modules to help make system layout
easier, so adding "2 per panel" type modules defeats that. Since you say you
have 6 MOTM-300s, you're obviously not creating a small modular yourself, so
you should be able to relate to the fact that these beasts get pretty huge.
You need to move modules, physically, near where you tend to use them to cut
down on 20-foot patchcords, so flexibility in module placement gets
important.
>>>" The divider: Isn't that what a sub-octave mux already does?"
The Mux is ∗one way∗ of implementing a pulse divider. It has four sub
octaves, and it's claim to fame is its unique method of "ring modulating"
them. The 'new' divider is a voltage controllable "divide-by-∗n∗" module
that not only creates sub-octaves, but just about any other ratio that you
might want. Hook some attenuators to the outputs as "drawbars" and you have
an instant organ-like module. I think you can even "sweep the ratio" with a
CV, which sounds pretty unique to me.
>>>" Got a sub-octave mux; not certain what else a divider would do for me
sonically... I must confess that the apparent novelty of a 1U VCO or
"divider" escapes me."
Don't just think sonically -- that's limiting your options. Dividers are a
fantastic way of creating secondary gates and other pulses that have a fixed
rhythmic relationship to the input source. But with only divide-by-2
("octave") division, you're very limited with what you can do in this
respect. With multiple ratios simultaneously available, you can do all sorts
of wild 'synchro-sonic' stuff. As for the 1u VCO, the 'VC-Shape' control is
a fantastic feature. You wouldn't want to live without PWM, would you? This
is a conceptually similar, yet different-sounding effect.
>>>" At present, a MOTM-Dual VCA does not yet exist (for sale)."
Hmm... that's strange. Then what is my MOTM-110? Isn't that a dual VCA?
Don't forget that the ring modulator is a 4-quadrant multiplier, and a VCA
is a 2QM. Just don't put AC into the 'control' input and it's a VCA.
>>> "Lastly, I think I'd prefer to vote with more information in-hand. I
would like to know probable prices because that will influence, to some
degree, the order in which I buy modules (and consequently, what I would
vote for as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices). Suggestion: Once a person buys say
a minimum of 8 or so MOTM modules, he/she should have private access to a
"new products" page on the SynthTech website (that is not available to
competitors or the general Internet public). There, product ideas could be
previewed with full descriptions, probable selling prices, and perhaps
development durations. In other words, this would be a virtualized glossy
brochure. Then when we vote for a given new module, we'd do so being fully
informed rather squealing for something that may not be fully described or
described across many group postings over a period of many days."
The prices might help with a decision at that, should they be significantly
different. But as for the other points, don't forget that getting the
general public to drool over the future of MOTM is important, too, and that
the competitors often own a lot of MOTM modules and therefore would qualify
for the "private" area that you describe!
Also, as you can see by this voting process, changes and decisions happen
late in the game, so I imagine that it would be difficult for Paul to create
polished glossy proposals with set final prices. Plus, that locks him in.
The more realized (there's a vague pun in there...) such a thing is, the
more people would hold to it as a 'promise' and be upset at last-minute
changes.
>>>" Does Paul factor in the complement of MOTM modules already owned by the
respondents?"
Probably _not_, when you're mentioning the Mini-Wave as an alternative to a
new MOTM module. ;-) But how can Paul know what we really have in our
studios? Sure, I imagine he's trying to offer a full range of MOTM modules,
but as has been pointed out, for all three of these candidates, kindred
alternatives already exist, and if someone needs VCAs, there are still 110s
available. When Paul first announced that the supply was limited, I rushed
out and grabbed another.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I didn't submit a vote because these
modules ALL sound good to me. I always like to see a new VCO, ∗and∗ a new 1u
module. The divider looks to be very cool. And you can never have enough
VCAs, of course. So I'm happy with any of these choices.